Lennard's Carrying Company v Asiatic Petroleum Company

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date08 March 1915
CourtHouse of Lords
Date08 March 1915
[HOUSE OF LORDS.]LENNARD'S CARRYING COMPANY, LIMITED APPELLANTS; AND ASIATIC PETROLEUM COMPANY, LIMITED RESPONDENTS.1915 March 8.VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C., LORD DUNEDIN, LORD ATKINSON, LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON, and LORD PARMOOR.

Ship - Loss of Cargo by Fire - Fire caused by Unseaworthiness - “Actual fault or privity” of Owners - Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict.c. 60), s. 502.

By s. 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the owner of a British sea-going ship shall not be liable to make good to any extent whatever “any loss or damage happening without his actual fault or privity” where any goods or merchandise taken in or put on board his ship are lost or damaged by reason of fire on board the ship.

A cargo of benzine on board ship was lost by a fire caused by the unseaworthiness of the ship in respect of the defective condition of her boilers. The shipowners were a limited company and the managing owners were another limited company. The managing director of the latter company was the registered managing owner and took the active part in the management of the ship on behalf of the owners. He knew or had the means of knowing of the defective condition of the boilers, but he gave no special instructions to the captain or the chief engineer regarding their supervision and took no steps to prevent the ship putting to sea with her boilers in an unseaworthy condition:—

Held, that the owners had failed to discharge the onus which lay upon them of proving that the loss happened without their actual fault or privity.

Decision of the Court of Appeal[1914] 1K. B.419 affirmed.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of Appeal affirming a judgment of Bray J.F1

The appellants were the owners of the steamship Edward Dawson. By a charterparty dated February 23, 1911, the ship was let on time charter to the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company for nine, twelve, or fifteen months at the option of the charterers. Under this charterparty she loaded a cargo of 2011 tons of benzine at Novorossisk in Russia for carriage to Rotterdam. The respondents were purchasers of this cargo and indorsees of the bills of lading. On October 1, 1911, whilst in the course of her voyage from Novorossisk to Rotterdam the ship and her cargo were destroyed by fire. The respondents brought an action against the appellants for damages for loss of the cargo.

By their points of claim the respondents alleged the failure to deliver the cargo. Alternatively they alleged that the ship was unseaworthy at Novorossisk by reason of the defective condition of her boilers and that owing to this unseaworthiness the ship with her cargo was driven ashore and lost.

The appellants by their points of defence admitted the failure to deliver, but relied on s. 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894F2, as relieving them from liability, and they denied the allegation of unseaworthiness. The respondents by their points of reply denied that the cargo was lost by fire within the meaning of s. 502 and alleged that it was lost by perils of the sea occasioned by the unseaworthiness. Alternatively they alleged that if the cargo was lost by fire the fire was occasioned by the unseaworthiness. In the further alternative they alleged that by the terms of the contract of carriage the appellants had precluded themselves from relying on the protection of the section; but in the circumstances it became unnecessary for the Court to determine this question.

The Edward Dawson was a steel screw oil tank steamer. She had two boilers and each boiler had three furnaces. Her average speed was about seven knots. She was built in 1890 for a French firm and was classed in the first division of the Bureau Veritas. She was supplied with new boilers in 1896. In 1897 she was purchased by the appellants, who then expended 6500l. upon her. The managers of the appellant company were another company, John M. Lennard & Sons, Limited, and the managing director of that company was John M. Lennard, who was the registered managing owner of the ship. Lennard did not give evidence at the trial.

In February, 1911, the ship was repaired at Liverpool to the requirements of the Bureau Veritas surveyor, Mr. Viehoff; and her class was extended for twelve months to March 31, 1912, but subject to the pressure of her boilers being reduced from 160 lbs. to 130 lbs. She then proceeded under the time charter to various ports in the Mediterranean and returned to Thames Haven in June, 1911. There had been trouble with her boilers during this voyage. Before the arrival of the ship at Thames Haven the charterers sent a letter to the appellants complaining that there was something greatly wrong with her engines and boilers and urging that they should be put in thorough working order, and in July, 1911, the appellants ordered new boilers and stipulated that they should be ready by the middle of November. On her arrival at Thames Haven the boilers were examined by a foreman boilermaker named Clarke, representing the general marine superintendent of the ship, Mr. Smaling. Clarke reported that the repairs necessary were of a miscellaneous but not very serious character. No instructions were given by Lennard or the appellants either to Smaling or to Clarke, nor was the charterers' complaint communicated to them. The repairs were done by Fletcher & Sons, Limited, a responsible firm, under the directions of Clarke and were limited to repairing existing leaks. The evidence showed that the normal life of a boiler if well cared for was from sixteen to eighteen years and the normal life of a set of tubes about ten years. The ship then proceeded to New York, and from New York to Barcelona and from Barcelona to Novorossisk, and during all this time the trouble with the boilers continued and increased. The master made no communications on this matter either to the appellants or to Lennard. On her arrival at Novorossisk there was a very large accumulation of salt in the boilers owing to leakage, and the crew spent two days cutting out the salt. After loading her cargo of benzine the ship left Novorossisk for Rotterdam, and before she reached the English Channel the two centre furnaces were completely salted up so that they had become useless, and two tubes in the boilers had burst. Shortly after passing Dover on September 30, 1911, the ship encountered a strong north-westerly gale with a heavy sea. At 3.30 P.M. the captain brought her head to the wind as he...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
324 cases
  • Safeway Stores Ltd and Others v Twigger and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 21 Diciembre 2010
    ...on proof that the defendants were their “directing mind or will” (the phrase used by Lord Haldane in Lennards Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] A.C. 705, 713–4). But in my judgment it does not so depend because it was sufficient for the OFT to show that the companies intenti......
  • Wee Hood Teck Development Corporation; Yong & Company
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Accc v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • Invalid date
  • BSkyB Ltd and Another v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 26 Enero 2010
    ...which must be considered to determine whether the corporation had knowledge. As stated by Viscount Haldane LC in Lennards Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd [1915] AC 705 at 713: "… a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; i......
  • Get Started for Free
1 firm's commentaries
  • The American Way – DPAs Arrive In The UK
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 13 Febrero 2014
    ...2 Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705 and Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 3 The current US federal common law standard is: a corporate is criminally liable for the acts of its agents and employees whenever such agents or employees act within the sc......
51 books & journal articles
  • 'The receipt of what?': Questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichment.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 31 No. 1, April 2007
    • 1 Abril 2007
    ...and constructive notice of the persons who constitute its 'directing mind and will': Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Lid [1915] AC 705, 713 (Viscount Haldane LC); El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc [1994] 2 All ER 685, 705 (Hoffmann (66) Finn, above n 3, 209. See also Kooro......
  • The Legal Personality of the Commonwealth of Australia
    • United Kingdom
    • Sage Federal Law Review No. 47-1, March 2019
    • 1 Marzo 2019
    ...Australia [2014] FCA 552 (28 May 2014) [111]–[112] (Foster J)(‘Danthanarayana’).53. Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705, 713 (Viscount Haldane LC).54. Danthanarayana [2014] FCA 552 (28 May 2014) [112] (Foster J).55. Seegenerally R D Lumb, ‘“The Commonwealth of......
  • Adieu to Attribution
    • United Kingdom
    • Wiley The Modern Law Review No. 85-3, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...Damages: Divergence in Search of aRationale’ (1989)40 Alabama LR 741, 775.68 Lennard’s Carrying Co Ltd vAsiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705, 713. See also TescoSupermar-kets Ltd vNattrass [1972] AC 153; El Ajou vDollar Land Holdings plc [1994] 2 All ER 685 (CA)(El Ajou). In Meridian Lord......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Archive Criminal Law. Fourth Edition
    • 2 Septiembre 2009
    ...156 .................................................................... 400 Lennard’s Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd., [1915] A.C. 705, 84 L.J.K.B. 1281, [1914-1915] All E.R. Rep. 280, 113 L.T. 195, 31 T.L.R. 294, 59 Sol. J. 411 (H.L.) ............................................
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT